NASDAQ: LITS

Private Investment in Private Equity (PIPE) and Related Agreements

As more fully discussed in Note 15. Subsequent Events, in July 2025, we closed on a $100.0 million PIPE and issued an aggregate of (i) 23,216,898 shares (the Shares) of our common stock, at an offering price of $3.42 per share and (ii) pre-funded warrants (the Pre-Funded Warrants (together with the common stock, the Securities)), to purchase up to an aggregate of 6,022,869 shares of our common stock (the Pre-Funded Warrant Shares) at an offering price of $3.4199 per Pre-Funded Warrant (collectively, the Offering or the PIPE). On July 24, 2025, Pre-Funded Warrants for the purchase of 2,084,509 shares of common stock were exercised for a de minimis amount of cash proceeds. As of September 23, 2025, we issued 2,807,967 shares of common stock upon cashless exercises of 2,808,070 Pre-Funded Warrants.

Also, in July 2025 and as more fully discussed in Note 15. Subsequent Events, we entered into various agreements with certain advisors to the PIPE, asset managers and custodians who will deploy our Litecoin Treasury Strategy (discussed below), including but not limited to: (i) a placement agency agreement, (ii) an asset management agreement, (iii) an advisory agreement, (iv) a strategic advisor agreement and (v) a new at-the- market sales agreement. As partial consideration for services provided associated with the PIPE, we issued warrants for the purchase of up to 3,070,177 shares of our common stock with a weighted-average exercise price of approximately $4.10 per share.

On September 24, 2025, as payment of the annual Asset-based Fee under the Asset Management Agreement (as defined below), we issued to GSR Strategies LLC (GSR), 546,348 Pre-Funded Warrants with an exercise price of $0.0001 per share. Subject to the limitations on exercise set forth in the warrant agreement, the Pre-Funded Warrants may be exercised at any time until they are exercised in full.

Litecoin Treasury Strategy

On August 5, 2025, we announced the commencement of our primary reserve asset and implementation strategy built on a digital asset infrastructure and long-term capital innovation (a Litecoin Treasury Strategy) through our acquisition of Litecoin (LTC)

tokens, reflecting the full deployment of the net proceeds of the PIPE. Litecoin is an open source, global payment network that is fully decentralized without any central authorities. Mathematics secures the network and empowers individuals to control their own finances. Litecoin features faster transaction confirmation times and improved storage efficiency than the leading math-based currency. We believe this strategy will allow us to diversify reserves, enhance capital efficiency and align with emerging financial technologies.

Cooperation Agreement and Cash Dividend

On October 31, 2023, we announced our entry into a cooperation agreement with Anson Funds Management LP and Cable Car Capital LLC (Cooperation Agreement), which, among other non-financial related items, provided for a capital return to stockholders in the form of a dividend in the amount of $1.75 per share of common stock, that was declared on November 6, 2023, to stockholders of record at the close of business on November 17, 2023 (Capital Return). The total dividend of $11.7 million was paid on December 6, 2023, and was recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in capital in the consolidated statements of stockholders' equity, as we have an accumulated deficit, rather than retained earnings.

Effective July 22, 2025, in conjunction with the closing of the Offering, the parties to the Cooperation Agreement mutually agreed to terminate such Cooperation Agreement.

Merger Termination

At a special meeting of our stockholders held on July 23, 2023, stockholders voted on the agreement and plan of merger (Merger Agreement) entered into in February 2023, by us, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Infinity) and Meadow Merger Sub, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary (Merger Sub). At such special meeting, the Merger Agreement did not obtain the necessary approval from our stockholders and, accordingly, on July 23, 2023, we sent Infinity a notice terminating the Merger Agreement.

Drug Candidate Development Programs

Our drug candidate pipeline includes voruciclib, an oral CDK9 inhibitor, and zandelisib, an oral, once-daily, selective PI3Kδ inhibitor.

Voruciclib: Potent Orally Administered CDK9 Inhibitor in Phase 1 Studies

Voruciclib, a selective orally administered CDK9 inhibitor completed a Phase 1 trial in September 2024 evaluating dose and schedule in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in combination with the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax (marketed as Venclexta®). Previously, voruciclib was also being evaluated in pre-clinical studies to explore potential activity in various solid tumor cancers including in combination with therapies that target the RAS signaling pathway, such as KRAS inhibitors. All clinical trial efforts for voruciclib were ceased as of July 22, 2024, and we are currently assessing the pre-clinical development program in potentially non-oncology disease indications.

Voruciclib Scientific Overview: Cell Cycle Signaling

CDK9 has important functions in cell cycle regulation, including the modulation of two therapeutic targets in cancer:

CDK9 is a transcriptional regulator of the myeloid leukemia cell differentiation protein (Mcl-1), a member of the family of anti-apoptotic proteins which, when elevated, may prevent the cell from undergoing cell death and result in poor prognosis in cancer. Inhibition of CDK9 blocks the production of Mcl-1, which is also an established resistance mechanism to the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax.

CDK9 is a transcriptional regulator of the MYC proto-oncogene protein (MYC) which regulates cell proliferation and growth. Upregulation of MYC is implicated in many human cancers and is frequently associated with poor prognosis and unfavorable patient survival. CDK9, in addition to being a transcription factor for MYC, also decreases phosphorylation of MYC protein that is implicated in stabilizing MYC in KRAS mutant cancers.

Directly inhibiting MCL1 and MYC has historically been difficult, but CDK9 is a promising approach to indirectly target these oncogenes.

Voruciclib: Inhibition of MCL1

CDK9 is a known transcriptional regulator of MCL1. Over expression of MCL1 is frequently observed in many tumor types and is closely associated with tumorigenesis, poor prognosis and drug resistance. In AML, MCL1 is upregulated in about half of patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) disease and is associated with poor prognosis in these patients. Also important, high levels of MCL1 expression are associated with resistance to venetoclax.

In pre-clinical studies, voruciclib shows dose-dependent suppression of MCL1; in December 2017, a study of voruciclib published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports reported that the combination of voruciclib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax was capable of inhibiting two master regulators of cell survival, MCL-1 and BCL-2 and achieved synergistic antitumor effect in an aggressive subset of DLBCL cells.

In a peer reviewed manuscript published in 2020, it was reported that the inhibition of CDK9 by voruciclib synergistically enhances cell death induced by the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax in preclinical models of AML. The data demonstrated that voruciclib synergizes with venetoclax to induce programmed cell death, or apoptosis, in both AML cell lines and primary patient samples. It was also demonstrated that voruciclib downregulates MCL1, which is relevant for the synergy between voruciclib and venetoclax and further that voruciclib downregulates MYC, which also contributes to the synergies with venetoclax.

Subsequently and consistent with the reported pre-clinical studies, data from a prior Phase 1 study evaluating voruciclib as a single agent and in combination with venetoclax in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML have also demonstrated the anticipated decreases in Mcl-1 protein.

The research suggests that voruciclib is potentially an attractive therapeutic agent for treating cancers in combination with venetoclax or other BCL-2 inhibitors, to address potential resistance associated with MCL1 and is supportive of our clinical evaluation of voruciclib in AML.

Voruciclib: Inhibition of MYC

Many cancers are associated with over expression of MYC, a transcription factor regulating cell proliferation and growth. CDK9 is a known regulator of MYC transcription and a modulator of MYC protein phosphorylation. Data reported at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021 in preclinical models demonstrated that voruciclib:

Results in a rapid decrease in the phosphorylation of proteins that promote MYC transcription;

Rapidly decreases phosphorylation of MYC protein on Ser62, a site implicated in stabilizing MYC in KRAS mutant cancers;

Possesses single agent activity against multiple KRAS mutant cancer cell lines both in vitro and in vivo; and

Synergistically inhibits KRAS G12C mutant cancer cell lines in combination with KRAS G12C inhibitors, both in vitro and in vivo.

The research presented suggests that voruciclib could be an attractive therapeutic agent for both hematological cancers, as well as solid tumors, dependent on the activity of MYC.

Terminated Clinical Programs

In a Phase 1 clinical trial, we evaluated the dose and schedule of voruciclib in combination with venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, in patients with R/R AML. The trial started with the evaluation of dose and schedule of voruciclib as a monotherapy in patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell malignancies and AML after failure of prior standard therapies to determine the safety, preliminary efficacy and maximum tolerated dose. The primary objectives of the study were to determine the safety and biologic effective dose of voruciclib monotherapy or voruciclib in combination with venetoclax. Secondary objectives of the study included assessing the preliminary efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and biomarkers of voruciclib monotherapy or voruciclib in combination with venetoclax.

As we reported in a poster presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting in December 2023, the voruciclib monotherapy dose escalation/expansion stage of the study enrolled a total of 40 patients and is complete. The majority of patients (n=21) had AML and the remaining patients (n=19) had B-cell malignancies. Of the 40 patients enrolled, the first 16 were dosed daily continuously at 50 and 100 mg and the following 24 patients were dosed on an intermittent schedule (14 consecutive days on therapy in a 28-day cycle) at 100, 150 and 200 mg. All patients were heavily pre-treated with a median of three prior therapies (range 1-9) and five patients had prior hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Voruciclib at doses up to 200 mg administered on 14 consecutive days in a 28-day cycle (Cohort 2) was well tolerated with no dose limiting toxicities (DLT) reported. The most common adverse events (≥20% of patients) were diarrhea, nausea, anemia and fatigue. The large majority of adverse events were Grade 1-2; of note, the only Grade 3-4 adverse events in Cohort 2 were diarrhea (n=1) and anemia (n=5). Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional and a mean half-life of approximately 24 hours supports once daily dosing.

On the intermittent dosing schedule selected for further development, no DLTs were observed, there were no Grade 3 or higher drug related toxicities and dose escalation was stopped at 200 mg before reaching the maximum tolerated dose because plasma concentrations reached levels considered sufficient for target inhibition. In the 21 patients enrolled with AML, one patient at 100 mg achieved a morphologic leukemia-free state and nine patients had disease stabilization, which lasted at least three months in two patients. In the 19 patients enrolled with B-cell malignancies, four patients had stable disease with a decrease in tumor size. Initial results from correlative studies assessing myeloid leukemia cell differentiation protein (Mcl-1) and RNA Pol II phosphorylation on

Ser2 (RNA Pol II p-S2) demonstrated reduction in expression consistent with the anticipated on-target pharmacodynamic effect of voruciclib on Mcl-1 and RNA Pol II p-S2.

The next stage of the study evaluated seven voruciclib dose levels from 50 mg every other day to 300 mg daily for 14 consecutive days in a 28-day cycle in combination with standard dose venetoclax in patients with R/R AML. A total of 41 patients with R/R AML, median age 67 years (range 34-89), enrolled in this dose escalation stage of the study evaluating voruciclib in combination with venetoclax. These patients were generally heavily pretreated; the median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-7) and 18 (44%) patients had ≥3 prior lines. Almost all patients (39/41) were treated with venetoclax in an earlier line of therapy. Additionally, 30 (73%) patients were noted as being in an adverse 2017 ELN Risk Category due to adverse cytogenetics and molecular mutations.

Of the 32 patients administered voruciclib at doses ≥ 100 mg in combination with venetoclax 10 (31%) achieved disease control. Three patients achieved a response, including two patients that achieved a complete response with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) and one patient that achieved a morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS), in each case having received venetoclax in an earlier line of treatment. Responses lasted 6 months in one patient, 9 months and ongoing in the second patient and the third patient was referred to stem cell transplant. Further, an additional 7 patients had stable disease which lasted more than 90 days and 13 had stable disease < 3 months.

In the 28 patients administered voruciclib in combination with venetoclax and with blood samples available for analysis, initial results from correlative biomarker assay studies demonstrated anticipated decreases of Mcl-1, including a greater decrease in Mcl-1 in responding patients. This supports our hypothesis that voruciclib, as an inhibitor or CDK9, regulates Mcl-1 and therefore may address the upregulation of MCL1 associated with venetoclax. Additional evidence of anti-leukemic activity was also demonstrated including decreases in bone marrow blast counts post voruciclib/venetoclax administration versus pre drug administration in ~50% (11/21) of evaluable patients.

Voruciclib at doses up to 300 mg administered on 14 consecutive days in a 28-day cycle in combination with standard dose venetoclax was well tolerated with no dose limiting toxicities observed. The maximum tolerated dose of voruciclib administered on this schedule with venetoclax has not been established. There were no discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events and no evidence of overlapping toxicity has been observed to date. The most common (≥5% of patients) grade 3 adverse events were myelosuppression associated with AML. Only 1 patient was observed as having a non-hematologic grade 3 drug-related adverse event (diarrhea).

Before ending the study, three patients were administered 150 mg voruciclib over 21 consecutive days in a 28-day cycle in combination with venetoclax to increase dose intensity and potentially optimize patient response based upon the rebound of peripheral blast counts in 44% (8/18) of the patients between Day 14 and Day 28 when voruciclib was stopped while continuing venetoclax.

Voruciclib was also previously evaluated in more than 70 patients with solid tumors in multiple Phase 1 studies. The totality of the clinical data, along with data from pre-clinical studies, suggests voruciclib’s ability to inhibit its molecular target at a projected dose as low as 150 mg daily. In one clinical study, voruciclib was evaluated in combination with vemurafenib (marketed as Zelboraf®) in nine patients with BRAF mutated advanced/ inoperable malignant melanoma. All three BRAF/MEK naive patients achieved a response: two partial responses and one complete response. In this study voruciclib was dosed at 150 mg daily plus vemurafenib 720 mg or 960 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The most common adverse events were fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, arthralgia and headache. One instance of grade 3 fatigue was dose limiting and no serious adverse events related to voruciclib were reported. Other clinical studies evaluated voruciclib at doses up to 850 mg in patients with solid tumors, demonstrating additional evidence of potential biologic activity and an adverse event profile generally consistent with other drugs in its class.

Zandelisib: PI3Kδ Inhibitor Overview

Zandelisib is an oral, once-daily, selective PI3Kδ inhibitor that we were jointly developing with Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd (KKC) under a global license, development and commercialization agreement entered into in April 2020 that was later terminated in 2023 (as further discussed below). Currently, there are no clinical trial efforts for zandelisib and we are assessing the pre-clinical development program.

In March 2022, we and KKC reported the outcome of an end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA wherein the agency discouraged a filing based on data from a single-arm Phase 2 TIDAL trial. At this meeting, the FDA stated that data generated from single arm studies such as the Phase 2 TIDAL trial are insufficient to adequately assess the risk/benefit of PI3Kδ inhibitors evaluating indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Additionally, the FDA emphasized that we continue efforts with the randomized Phase 3 COASTAL trial evaluating patients with relapsed or refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphomas. Subsequently, at an April 2022 meeting of the FDA Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee, the committee voted that future approvals of PI3Kδ inhibitors for hematologic malignancies should be supported by randomized data.

In November 2022, we and KKC met with the FDA in a follow-up meeting to the March 2022 end of Phase 2 meeting. At this meeting, the FDA provided further guidance regarding the design and statistical analysis for the Phase 3 COASTAL trial. Following the November meeting, the companies jointly concluded that a clinical trial consistent with the recent FDA guidance, including

modification of the COASTAL trial, would likely not be feasible to complete within a time period that would support further investment or with sufficient certainty of the regulatory requirements for approval to justify continued global development efforts. As a result, we and KKC jointly decided to discontinue global development of zandelisib for indolent forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma outside of Japan. The discontinuation of zandelisib development outside of Japan was a business decision based on the most recent regulatory guidance from the FDA and is not related to the zandelisib clinical data generated to date. After making the joint decision to terminate development outside of Japan, we and KKC began closing all zandelisib clinical studies outside of Japan, including the Phase 3 COASTAL trial, the Phase 2 TIDAL trial and the Phase 2 CORAL trial. Subsequently, in May 2023, KKC decided to discontinue development of zandelisib in Japan. The discontinuation of zandelisib in Japan was a business decision by KKC based on the most recent regulatory guidance from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in Japan and was not related to the zandelisib clinical data that had been generated.

On July 14, 2023, we entered into a Termination Agreement (the Termination Agreement) with KKC to terminate all agreements between the parties and cease further zandelisib clinical development globally. Activities associated with the compassionate use supply and wind down of the KKC Commercialization Agreement were completed in fiscal year 2024.

KKC License, Development and Commercialization Agreement

In April 2020, we entered into the KKC Commercialization Agreement under which we granted to KKC a co-exclusive, sublicensable, payment-bearing license under certain patents and know-how controlled by us to develop and commercialize zandelisib and any pharmaceutical product containing zandelisib for all human indications in the U.S. (the U.S. License) and an exclusive (subject to certain retained rights to perform obligations under the KKC Commercialization Agreement), sublicensable, payment- bearing, license under certain patents and know-how controlled by us to develop and commercialize zandelisib and any pharmaceutical product containing zandelisib for all human indications in countries outside of the U.S. (the Ex-U.S. and the Ex-U.S. License). Also under the KKC Commercialization Agreement, we were granted a co-exclusive, sublicensable, license under certain patents and know-how controlled by KKC to develop and commercialize zandelisib for all human indications in the U.S. and a co-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free, fully paid license under certain patents and know-how controlled by KKC to perform our obligations in the Ex-U.S. and were paid an initial non-refundable payment of $100.0 million. Additionally, in Japan, the KKC Commercialization Agreement included potential regulatory and commercialization milestone payments plus royalties on net sales of zandelisib in Japan, which are tiered beginning in the teens. Prior to the execution of the Termination Agreement on July 14, 2023, KKC was responsible for the development and commercialization of zandelisib in the Ex-U.S. and, subject to certain exceptions, solely responsible for all costs related thereto. We also provided to KKC certain drug supplies necessary for the development and commercialization of zandelisib in the Ex-U.S., with the understanding that KKC would have assumed responsibility for manufacturing for the Ex-U.S. as soon as practicable.

As noted above, on July 14, 2023, we entered into a Termination Agreement with KKC to mutually terminate the KKC Commercialization Agreement and all other related agreements between the parties. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement:

we regained full, global rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize zandelisib, subject to KKC's limited rights to use zandelisib for compassionate use (as more specifically defined in the Termination Agreement) in certain expanded access programs for the existing patients who have been enrolled in Japanese clinical trial sponsored by KKC until November 30, 2027, and for which KKC is fully liable;

each party released the other party from any and all claims, demands, etc. arising from the KKC Commercialization Agreement, excluding certain surviving claims; and

we are obligated to deliver a discrete quantity of materials to facilitate KKC's compassionate use activities.

As of June 30, 2023, we had $64.9 million of aggregate deferred revenue associated with the KKC Commercialization Agreement, of which $64.5 million was allocated to the U.S. License and $0.3 million was allocated to the Development Services performance obligations which were recognized based on the proportional performance of these development activities through wind-down of the associated trials. As further discussed in Note 7. License Agreements, in connection with the execution of the Termination Agreement during the three months ended September 30, 2023, we recognized the $64.5 million of noncash long-term deferred revenue associated with the U.S. License as well as the remaining $0.3 million noncash deferred revenue associated with the completion of the underlying proportional performance activities. As of September 30, 2023, all deferred revenue associated with the KKC Commercialization Agreement had been recognized.

Competition

The marketplace for our drug candidates is highly competitive. A number of other companies have products or drug candidates in various stages of pre-clinical or clinical development that are intended for the same therapeutic indications for which our drug candidates are being developed. Some of these potential competing drug candidates are further advanced in development than our drug candidates and may be commercialized sooner. Even if we are successful in developing products that receive regulatory

approval, such products may not compete successfully with products produced by our competitors or with products that may subsequently receive regulatory approval.

Our competitors include pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies, as well as universities and public and private research institutions. In addition, companies active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Many of our competitors developing oncology drugs have significantly greater capital resources, larger research and development staffs and facilities and greater experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing, marketing and commercialization than we do. They compete with us in recruiting sites and eligible patients to participate in clinical studies and in attracting development and/or commercialization partners. They also license technologies that are competitive with our technologies. As a result, our competitors may be able to more easily develop technologies and products that would render our technologies or our drug candidates obsolete or non-competitive.

Intellectual Property

We own, by assignment or exclusive license, worldwide rights to each of our current drug candidates.

We have acquired exclusive worldwide rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize voruciclib from Presage Biosciences, Inc. (Presage). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has allowed or issued 21 U.S. patents covering the composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use to treat cancer which are projected to expire between 2026 and 2039, not including any patent term extension. There are approximately 90 allowed or issued foreign patents, 8 pending U.S. provisional patent applications and approximately 50 pending foreign patent applications for voruciclib, related compounds and related methods of use.

We have acquired, by assignment, worldwide rights to zandelisib and other related compounds from Pathway Therapeutics, Inc. The USPTO has issued nine patents covering zandelisib as composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of use to treat cancer and combinations with additional therapies. The issued U.S. patents with composition of matter claims covering zandelisib are projected to expire between 2030 and 2032, not including any patent term adjustment and patent term extension. There are approximately 48 foreign patents granted. There is 1 pending U.S. patent application and are approximately 13 pending foreign patent applications directed to zandelisib and related compounds or methods of use thereof.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to protect our proprietary technologies, compounds and information and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We rely on a combination of patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark laws, as well as confidentiality, licensing and other agreements, to establish and protect our proprietary rights. We seek patent protection for our key inventions, including drug candidates we identify, routes for chemical synthesis and pharmaceutical formulations. There is no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue, or that any of our patents will be enforceable or will cover a drug or other commercially significant product or method. In addition, we regularly review our patent portfolio to identify patents and patent applications that we deem to have relatively low value to our ongoing business operations for potential abandonment. There is also no assurance that we will correctly identify which of our patents and patent applications should be maintained and which should be abandoned. The term of most of our other current patents commenced and most of our future patents, if any, will commence, on the date of issuance and terminate 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of the non-provisional patent application. Because any marketing and regulatory approval for a drug often occurs several years after the related patent application is filed, the resulting market exclusivity afforded by any patent on our drug candidates and technologies will likely be substantially less than 20 years.

As most patent applications in the U.S. are maintained as confidential until published by the USPTO at 18 months from filing for all cases filed after November 29, 2000, or at issue, for cases filed prior to November 29, 2000, we cannot be certain that we or Presage were the first to make the inventions covered by the patents and applications referred to above. Additionally, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind the actual discoveries. Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, patents filed on or after June 8, 1995 have a term of twenty years from the date of such filing except for provisional applications, irrespective of the period of time it may take for such patent to ultimately issue. This may shorten the period of patent protection afforded to therapeutic uses of zandelisib or voruciclib as patent applications in the biopharmaceutical sector often take considerable time to issue. However, in some countries the patent term may be extended.

In order to protect the confidentiality of our technology, including trade secrets and know-how and other proprietary technical and business information, we require all of our consultants, advisors and collaborators to enter into agreements that prohibit the use or disclosure of information that is deemed confidential. These agreements also oblige our consultants, advisors and collaborators to assign to us, or negotiate a license to developments, discoveries and inventions made by such persons in connection with their work relating to our products. We cannot be sure that confidentiality will be maintained by those from whom we have acquired technology or disclosure prevented by these agreements. We also cannot be sure that our proprietary information or intellectual property will be

protected by these agreements or that others will not independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information or intellectual property.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and patents may have been applied for by and issued to, other parties relating to products competitive with voruciclib or zandelisib. Use of these compounds and any other drug candidates may give rise to claims that they infringe the patents or proprietary rights of other parties, existing now and in the future. An adverse claim could subject us to significant liabilities to such other parties and/or require disputed rights to be licensed from such other parties. We cannot be sure that any license required under any such patents or proprietary rights would be made available on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we do not obtain such licenses, we may encounter delays in product market introductions, or may find that the development, manufacture or sale of products requiring such licenses may be precluded.

Research and Development

The objective of our research and development (R&D) program is the generation of data sufficient to meet medical needs and develop a clinical and commercial profile with attractive attributes and/or to allow us to enter into a development and/or commercial relationship with another party. The data are generated by our pre-clinical studies and clinical trial programs.

The key aspects of our R&D program have been to provide more complete characterization of the following:

the relevant molecular targets of action of our drug candidates;

the relative therapeutic benefits and indications for use of our drug candidates as a monotherapy or as part of combinational therapy with other agents; and

the most appropriate therapeutic indications and dosage forms for voruciclib or zandelisib, based upon pre-clinical findings.

Government Regulation

U.S. Regulatory Requirements

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and comparable regulatory agencies in other countries, regulate and impose substantial requirements upon the research, development, nonclinical and clinical testing, labeling, manufacture, quality control, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, distribution, import and export of pharmaceutical products, as well as significant reporting and record-keeping obligations. State governments may also impose obligations in these and other areas. These requirements are extensive and are frequently changing.

In the U.S., pharmaceutical products are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and other laws. The process required by the FDA before drugs may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

nonclinical laboratory evaluations, including formulation and stability testing and animal tests performed under the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) regulations to assess pharmacological activity and toxicity potential. This last year, the FDA announced a plan to phase out animal testing for certain kinds of drugs, potentially replacing animal testing with new approach methodologies;

submission and approval of an investigational new drug (IND) application, including results of nonclinical tests, manufacturing information and protocols for clinical tests, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin in the U.S.;

obtaining approval of institutional review boards (IRBs) to administer the products to human subjects in clinical trials;

adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for the product’s intended use;

development of manufacturing processes which conform to the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), as confirmed by FDA inspection or remote regulatory assessments;

submission of results for nonclinical, toxicology and clinical studies and chemistry, manufacture and control information on the product to the FDA in a non-disclosure agreement (NDA); and

FDA review and approval of an NDA, prior to any commercial sale or shipment of a product.

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources and we cannot be certain that we will be able to ultimately submit marketing applications for any of our product candidates, that our development efforts will prove to be successful, that our studies will have positive outcomes, or that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

The results of the nonclinical studies, together with initial specified manufacturing information, the proposed clinical trial protocol and information about the participating investigators are submitted to the FDA as part of an investigational new drug (IND) application, which must become effective before we may begin human clinical trials in the U.S. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with federal regulations and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) requirements and with investigational products that follow cGMP. GCPs include, among other requirements, the requirements related to monitoring, drug accountability, data integrity and that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. FDA has issued a number of guidances regarding the conduct of clinical studies including with respect to good clinical practices and the conduct of different clinical studies.Following issuance of a final guidance, the FDA will further be requiring diversity action plans for certain clinical studies.

Additionally, an independent IRB must review and approve each study protocol and oversee conduct of the trial. An IND becomes effective 30-days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and imposes a clinical hold. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold at any time before or during clinical trials, the IND sponsor must resolve the FDA’s concerns before clinical trials can begin or continue. Nonclinical tests and studies can take several years to complete and there is no guarantee that an IND that is submitted based on such tests and studies will become effective within any specific time period, if at all.

Sponsors must make certain reports and submissions to the FDA and global health authorities, as appropriate and to clinical investigators who, in turn, make certain reports and submissions to the IRB or ethics committee, including annual reports and reports of investigator financial interests, serious adverse events and other significant safety information, study amendments and new study protocols. Information about certain clinical trials, including a description of the study and study results, must also be submitted within specific time frames to the National Institutes of Health (the NIH), for public dissemination on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Sponsors of investigational products for serious diseases must also have a publicly available policy on requests for expanded access.

Investigational drugs and active ingredients imported into the U.S. are also subject to regulation by the FDA. Further, the export of investigational products outside of the U.S. is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDCA.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients and tested for safety and dosage tolerance. Absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion testing is generally performed at this stage.

Phase 2: The drug is studied in controlled, exploratory therapeutic trials in a limited number of subjects with the disease or medical condition for which the new drug is intended to be used in order to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to determine the preliminary or potential efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases or medical conditions and to determine dosage tolerance and the optimal effective dose.

Phase 3: When Phase 2 studies demonstrate that a specific dosage range of the drug may be efficacious and the drug has an acceptable safety profile for further investigation, controlled, large-scale therapeutic Phase 3 trials are undertaken at multiple study sites to demonstrate clinical efficacy and to further test for safety in an expanded patient population. Typically, two Phase 3 trials are required by the FDA for product approval. Under some limited circumstances, however, the FDA may approve an NDA based upon a single Phase 3 clinical study plus confirmatory evidence or a single large multi-center trial without confirmatory evidence.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional nonclinical and toxicology studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) of the product candidate.

Some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee. This group reviews data and advises the study sponsor regarding the continuing safety of the trial. This group may also review interim data to assess the continuing validity and scientific merit of the clinical trial. The data monitoring committee may advise the sponsor to halt the clinical trial, modify the clinical trial, or continue the clinical trial depending on safety results and the trial’s likelihood of success.

We cannot be certain that we will successfully complete clinical testing of our products within any specific time period, if at all. Furthermore, the FDA, the IRB or we may suspend or terminate clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable safety risk or noncompliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Results of nonclinical and toxicology studies and clinical trials, as well as detailed information about the manufacturing process, quality control methods and product composition, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA seeking approval to market and commercially distribute the product on the basis of a determination that the product is safe and effective for its intended use. Once the FDA receives an application, it has 60 days to review the NDA to determine if it is substantially complete to permit a substantive review, before it accepts the application for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. Under the goals agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), the agency currently aims to review 90% of all applications for new molecular entities within ten months of the 60-day filing date for a standard review. The PDUFA date is only a goal, thus, the FDA does not always meet its PDUFA dates. The PDUFA date may also be extended if the FDA requests or the sponsor provides substantial additional information regarding the submission.

The FDA may refer certain applications to an advisory committee, which is a panel of experts that make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured and may inspect the sponsor, clinical study vendors and clinical sites at which the product candidate was studied and will not approve the product unless cGMP and GCP compliance are satisfactory. Inspections may be in-person or conducted remotely. If applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, the FDA may issue a complete response letter (CRL) to the sponsor requiring additional nonclinical or clinical studies or data or additional CMC information. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either: resubmit the marketing application, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter; withdraw the application; or request an opportunity for a hearing.

Once the FDA determines that the approval requirements are met, it will issue an approval letter that authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of approval, the FDA also may require post-marketing commitments and requirements, including studies and/or surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy. The FDA also may require a Medication Guide and also a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), or other conditions for a product’s approval or following approval to ensure that the benefits of the product candidate outweigh the risks. Moreover, even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications or populations for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a black box warning, impose other conditions, such as post-approval studies, or may not approve label statements that are necessary for successful commercialization and marketing.

Even after an NDA is approved, the FDA may impose additional obligations or restrictions (such as labeling changes, or clinical post-marketing requirements), or even suspend or withdraw a product approval or require additional testing or label revisions on the basis of data that arise after the product reaches the market, or if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained. We cannot be certain that any NDA we submit will be approved by the FDA for full or accelerated approval on a timely basis, if at all. Also, any such approval may limit the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed. Any refusal to approve, delay in approval, suspension or withdrawal of approval, or restrictions on indicated uses could have a material adverse impact on our business prospects.

Each NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee pursuant to the requirements of the PDUFA and its amendments. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances. Following product approval, drug products are also subject to annual program fees. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Subject to meeting certain requirements, a written request can be submitted for a waiver for the application fee for the first human drug application that is filed by a small business, but there are no small business waivers for program fees. Product candidates that are designated as orphan products are not subject to application user fees unless the application includes an indication other than the orphan indication and may be exempt from program fees if certain criteria are met. We are not at the stage of development with our products where we are subject to these fees, but they are significant expenditures that may be incurred in the future and must be paid at the time of application submissions to the FDA.

Satisfaction of FDA requirements typically takes many years. The actual time required varies substantially, based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the pharmaceutical product, among other things. Government regulation imposes costly and time-consuming requirements and restrictions throughout the product life cycle and may delay product marketing for a considerable period of time, limit product marketing, or prevent marketing altogether. Success in nonclinical or early-stage clinical trials does not ensure success in later stage clinical trials. Data obtained from nonclinical and clinical activities are not always conclusive and may be

susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval. Even if a product receives marketing approval, the approval is limited to specific clinical indications. Further, even after marketing approval is obtained, the discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market.

After product approval, there are continuing significant regulatory requirements imposed by the FDA, including record-keeping requirements, obligations to report adverse side effects in patients using the products and restrictions on advertising and promotional activities. Quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs and the FDA periodically inspects facilities, via in person inspections and remote regulatory assessments, to assess cGMP compliance. Additionally, post-approval changes in ingredient composition, manufacturing processes or facilities, product labeling, or other areas may require submission of an NDA Supplement to the FDA for review and approval. New indications will require additional clinical studies and submission of an NDA Supplement. Commercially distributed products are also subject to a variety of additional requirements, including requirements regarding tacking, tracing and supply chain integrity; and requirements related to drug shortages and drug shortage prevention.

Failure to comply with the FDA’s regulatory requirements may result in an enforcement action by the FDA, including clinical holds, refusal to approve marketing applications or supplements, Warning Letters, product recalls, suspension or revocation of product approval, seizure of product to prevent distribution, impositions of injunctions prohibiting product manufacture or distribution and civil and criminal penalties, among other actions. Maintaining compliance is costly and time-consuming. We cannot be certain that we, or our present or future suppliers or third-party manufacturers, will be able to comply with all FDA regulatory requirements and potential consequences of noncompliance could have a material adverse impact on our business prospects.

The FDA’s policies may change and additional governmental regulations may be enacted that could delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval of our products, that require that we implement additional compliance steps, or affect our ability to manufacture, market, or distribute our products after approval.

Our activities also may be subject to state laws and regulations that affect our ability to develop and sell our products. We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, clinical, laboratory and manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future and the failure to comply may have a material adverse impact on our business prospects.

The FDCA includes provisions designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs intended for treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for such conditions or present a significant improvement over existing therapy. These provisions set forth a procedure for designation of a drug as a fast track product. The fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and specific indication for which it is being studied. A product designated as fast track is ordinarily eligible for additional programs for expediting development and review, such as increased FDA interactions and rolling submission of the application.

Products that are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and that provide a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may also be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug approval under the accelerated approval regulations may be based on evidence of clinical effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. A post-marketing clinical study will be required to be completed to verify clinical benefit and other restrictions to assure safe use may be imposed. By the date of approval of an accelerated approval product, the FDA must specify the conditions for the required post approval studies, including enrollment targets, the study protocol, milestones and target completion dates. The FDA may also require that the confirmatory Phase 4 studies be commenced prior to the FDA granting a product accelerated approval. Reports on the progress of the required Phase 4 confirmatory studies must be submitted to the FDA every 180 days after approval. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit, will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug or biologic from the market on a statutorily defined expedited basis. Failure to conduct the required Phase 4 confirmatory studies or to conduct such studies with due diligence, as well as failure to submit the required update reports can subject a sponsor to penalties. In recent years, the accelerated approval pathway has come under significant FDA and public scrutiny. Accordingly, the FDA may be more conservative in granting accelerated approval or, if granted, may be more apt to withdrawal approval if clinical benefit is not confirmed or the risk benefit assessment changes.

A third potential designation that may be available is breakthrough therapy designation. A breakthrough therapy is a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Products designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for intensive FDA guidance, a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative and cross-disciplinary review, rolling submission of the application and the facilitation of cross-disciplinary review.

Finally, if a product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of the condition, the product may be eligible for priority review meaning that the FDA’s goal for the review of an NDA is shortened to six months (after a two month period during which the FDA decides whether the application is ready for filing) rather than the standard review of ten months from application acceptance. If we should seek additional designations for any of our programs, we cannot be assured that it will be granted by the FDA. There is also no guarantee that we will be able to maintain any designation that we have received or may receive.

Following the FDA’s approval of an NDA, sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s drug or a method of using the drug. These patents are published in the FDA’s list of Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can be cited by potential competitors as a reference listed drug in support of a 505(b)(2) NDA or an Abbreviated New Drug Application, (ANDA). In an effort to clarify which patents must be listed in the Orange Book, in January 2021, Congress passed the Orange Book Transparency Act of 2020, which largely codified the FDA’s existing practices into the FDCA. Listing patents in the Orange Book that do not qualify for listing can be considered to be anticompetitive conduct and, the Federal Trade Commission has sent letters to a number of companies with respect to certain patents that the agency asserted were improperly listed or inaccurate. Listings have also been the subject of court cases.

A 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature. An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics and intended use as a previously approved product. ANDA applicants generally must only scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug.

Generally, the FDA may not approve an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or 505(b)(2) NDA unless the reference listed drug’s Orange Book listed patents have expired and/or if the applicant certifies that it is not seeking approval for a patented method of use. The FDA may approve these applications, however, if the 505(b)(2) NDA or ANDA sponsor certifies that the Orange Book listed patents for the reference listed drug are invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This later certification is called a paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has made a paragraph IV certification, following notice to the NDA and patent holders, the NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit. If a lawsuit is brought, the FDA may not make an approval effective until the earlier of 30 months from the patent or application owner’s receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent is favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court.

Congress and U.S. federal administrative agencies have taken certain measures to increase drug competition and thus decrease drug prices, including by facilitating 505(b)(2) NDAs and ANDAs and by introducing additional products into the U.S. market. For example, the FDA finalized a rule and a guidance to facilitate drug importation. Congress also passed a bill requiring sponsors of NDA products to provide sufficient quantities of drug product on commercially reasonable market-based terms to entities developing generic and 505(b)(2) products. This bill also included provisions on shared and individual REMS for generic drug products.

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, a sponsor may obtain marketing exclusivity for a specified period of time following FDA approval of certain drug applications. For example, new drugs containing new chemical entities that have not been previously approved by the FDA may obtain five years of exclusivity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a paragraph IV certification. This exclusivity is not absolute. For instance, it will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; though, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the pre-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Following NDA approval, a patent owner may obtain an extension of a single unexpired patent that has not previously been extended for a period equal to one-half the period of time elapsed between the filing of an IND and the filing of the corresponding NDA plus the period of time between the filing of the NDA and FDA approval, with a five year maximum patent extension. The total patent life of the product with the extension cannot exceed fourteen years from the product’s approval date. The period of patent extension may also be reduced for any time that the applicant did not act with due diligence. We cannot be certain that we will be able

to take advantage of either the patent term extension or marketing exclusivity provisions of these laws or that, if received, they will adequately protect any approved products from competition.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) adds an additional six months of marketing exclusivity and patent protection to unexpired exclusivities and unexpired patents listed with the FDA for NDA applicants that conduct acceptable pediatric studies of new and currently marketed drug products for which pediatric information would be beneficial, as identified by the FDA in a Pediatric Written Request. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly address the agreement between the sponsor and the FDA in the Pediatric Written Request, the additional protection is granted.

The Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) also requires that most applications for drugs include a pediatric assessment (unless waived or deferred) to ensure the drugs’ safety and effectiveness in children. Such pediatric assessment must contain data, gathered using appropriate formulations for each age group for which the assessment is required, that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug product is safe and effective. The pediatric assessments can only be deferred provided there is a timeline for the completion of such studies. The FDA may waive (partially or fully) the pediatric assessment requirement for several reasons, including if the applicant can demonstrate that reasonable attempts to produce a pediatric formulation necessary for that age group have failed. Orphan products are also exempt from the PREA requirements.

Further, sponsors submitting original applications on or after August 18, 2020, for product candidates intended for the treatment of adult cancer which are directed at molecular targets that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of pediatric cancer must submit, prior to marketing application submission, an initial Pediatric Study Plan for FDA agreement and with the application, reports from molecularly targeted pediatric cancer clinical investigations designed to yield clinically meaningful pediatric study data, using appropriate pediatric formulations, to inform potential pediatric labeling. While orphan products are not exempt from this requirement, the FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which generally is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan drug designation if there is a product already approved by the FDA that is considered by the FDA to be the same as the already approved product and is intended for the same indication. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, i.e., the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances. By example, if there is already a product approved by the FDA that is the same product for the same indication, the orphan designated product will only receive orphan drug exclusivity if the prior hypothesis of clinical superiority is demonstrated. Competitors may also be able to receive approval for different drugs for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or the same drug for a different indication.

Notably, the exact scope of any period of orphan drug exclusivity may change. Specifically, 2021 judicial decision, Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, challenged and reversed an FDA decision on the scope of orphan product exclusivity for the drug, Firdapse. Under this decision, orphan drug exclusivity for Firdapse blocked approval of another company’s application for the same drug for the entire disease or condition for which orphan drug designation was granted, not just the disease or condition for which approval was received. In a January 2023 Federal Register notice, however, the FDA stated that it intends to continue to apply its regulations tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved. The exact scope of orphan drug exclusivity will likely be an evolving area.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement & Healthcare Reform

In addition, future sales of our products, if approved for marketing, will depend, in part, on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors, such as government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and limiting the coverage and reimbursement amounts for medical products and services. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or regulatory authority in other countries. It is time-consuming and expensive to seek reimbursement from third- party payors. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. In the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but they also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations.

In addition, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of the product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government healthcare program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and drug price transparency measures and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products, such as negotiated ceiling prices and penalties for price increases that exceed the rate of inflation, that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States.

Regulatory Changes

Over the last year, there have been a number of changes in the regulation of pharmaceutical products and legal standards, including the reduced level of judicial deference due to administrative agencies following a 2024 Supreme Court decision. This may introduce uncertainties with respect to how we or any product candidates may be regulated and our future likelihood of success. It is possible that new federal or state laws or regulations may be passed, or laws and regulations may be enforced differently than they were before, which may expose us to additional legal and regulatory risk or uncertainty and require the expenditure of additional resources to ensure that we are able to comply. Such actions could also adversely restrict our business and operations. There could also be changes in FDA’s approval standards that could impact our ability to obtain product approvals in the future and to competitively market any product candidates,including change in product reimbursement to the extent applicable. Such changes may necessitate the conduct of additional development work, including preclinical and clinical trials and manufacturing development or may limit our ability to successfully market any product. Moreover, changes in the federal workforce and agency policies may result in regulatory delays or changes in administrative agencies’ regulatory approach. At the same time, FDA has created new programs intended to facilitate drug development, which, if we qualify for them, may provide new opportunities. Any of the foregoing may impact our business and results of operation.

Foreign Regulatory Requirements

Outside the U.S., our ability to market our products will also be contingent upon receiving marketing authorizations from the appropriate regulatory authorities and compliance with applicable post-approval regulatory requirements. Although the specific requirements and restrictions vary from country to country, as a general matter, foreign regulatory systems include risks similar to those associated with the FDA’s regulations, described above.

Under European Union (European Union) regulatory systems, marketing authorizations may be submitted either under a centralized or a decentralized procedure (DCP). Under the centralized procedure, a single application to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) leads to an approval granted by the European Commission which permits the marketing of the product throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain classes of medicinal products such as new substances for the treatment of oncology. In addition, all medicinal products developed by certain biotechnological means and those developed for cancer and other specified diseases and disorders, must be authorized via the centralized procedure. The centralized procedure will apply to any of our products that are developed by means of a biotechnology process or are intended for treatment of cancer. The DCP is used for products that are not eligible or not required to be authorized by the centralized procedure. The centralized procedure is optional for certain other products. Since the exit of the UK from the European Union, the UK has been excluded from the centralized procedure. It will be necessary for applicants to make a separate application to the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for a UK marketing authorization. There is currently no procedure for mutual EU/UK recognition of new medicinal products although there is an expedited review procedure (the EC Decision Reliance Procedure) for approval in the UK of EU approved products which is currently to run to December 31, 2023. Thereafter a new international recognition framework will be in place, which will have regard to decisions already made by the EMA. This means applications with a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) received after December 31, 2023 will be eligible.

As with FDA approval, we may not be able to secure regulatory approvals in the EU in a timely manner, if at all. Additionally, as in the U.S., post-approval regulatory requirements, such as those regarding product manufacture, marketing, or distribution, would

apply to any product that is approved in the EU and failure to comply with such obligations could have a material adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize any product.

The conduct of clinical trials in the EU is governed by the European Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which was implemented in June 2022. This CTR governs how regulatory bodies in member states control clinical trials. No clinical trial may be started without a clinical trial authorization granted by the national competent authority and favorable ethics approval. Under the CTER, clinical trial sponsors were able to use the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) since January 31, 2022, but were not obliged to use it immediately, in line with a three-year transition period, which expired January 31, 2025. National regulators in the EU Member States and European Economic Area (EEA) countries have been able to use the CTIS since January 31, 2022. With the exit of the UK from the EU in January 2021, the UK did not implement the CTR and the UK provisions implementing the previous law as set out in the previous Clinical Trial Directive (which fundamentally covered the same area as the CTR but was far less detailed and predated the CTIS) will continue to apply until amended by the UK. However, the UK has recently enacted the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 which is intended in part to align the US with the US/EEA as well as seeking to streamline approval procedures (including a combined MHRA and ethics committee approval process) acknowledging the effect of the non-inclusion of UK trials in the CRIS. This UK legislation comes into effect on April 28, 2026.

Accordingly, there is a marked degree of change and uncertainty both in the regulation of clinical trials and in respect of marketing authorizations which we face for our products in the EU.

Manufacturing

We do not have the facilities or capabilities to commercially manufacture any of our drug candidates. We are and expect to continue to be dependent on contract manufacturers for supplying our existing and future candidates for clinical trials and commercial scale manufacturing of our candidates in accordance with regulatory requirements, including cGMP. Contract manufacturers may utilize their own technology, technology developed by us, or technology acquired or licensed from third parties. FDA approval of the manufacturing procedures and the site will be required prior to commercial distribution.

Human Capital Management

As of June 30, 2025, we had four employees whom all reside in the United States and were engaged in business development, finance, information systems or administrative support. Other personnel resources are used from time to time as consultants or third-party service organizations on an as-needed basis for scientific and human resources activities. Our Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer has prior experience with pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical product companies. We believe that we have been successful in attracting skilled and experienced personnel, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to attract and retain the individuals needed.

We strive to create a workplace of choice to attract, retain and develop top talent to achieve our strategic goals. We strive to maximize the potential of our human capital resources by creating a respectful, rewarding and inclusive work environment that enables our employees to further our mission. We adhere to a philosophy that includes, among other things, commitments to create ongoing job opportunities, pay fair wages and protect worker health and safety.

We invest in our workforce by offering competitive salaries and benefits. We endeavor to foster a strong sense of ownership by offering stock options under our equity incentive plan. We also offer locally relevant benefits for all eligible employees.

None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We have never experienced a work stoppage and believe our relationship with our employees is good. Management considers our relations with employees to generally be positive.

Available Information

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge through our website at https://litestrategy.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Further, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC and can be found on our EDGAR page at http://www.sec.gov.